Do you think they'd fix crap if Activision charged to play?

#1slaveanselmoPosted 2/1/2013 3:08:40 PM
I think the game could be way better. I'm guessing their math models say they make more money pumping a game out every year as opposed to charging a monthly fee and keeping up one.

Thoughts? Opinions? Plain Ignorance?
---
I'm not changjng this signature until a Harbaugh wins the Super Bowl.
#2aheroafakePosted 2/1/2013 3:10:45 PM
Doubt it.
---
"ZOMG YOUR RADAR IS OUT LOLZ I SWEAR IM NOT 5 FT AWAY" - FFrulz2000 on Scrambler Perk
Xbox Live Gamertag: Capatan Azn Man
#3slaveanselmo(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2013 3:13:23 PM
It'd give them impetus to fix the problems in the game. The way it is now they don't have to do anything. They alreafy have our cash..
---
I'm not changjng this signature until a Harbaugh wins the Super Bowl.
#4SergioMach5Posted 2/1/2013 3:19:29 PM
I probably would be happier to pay to play monthly the modern warfare multiplayer since MW3 was essentially a watered down map pack for MW2, and would have been happier doing a monthly charge and leave when I want than forking 60 quid out on a half assed game, along with all the maps on one game (imagine CoD4, MW2 and MW3 maps combined)

Treyarch titles though would be iffy for monthly pay since the last 3 games have all had different time periods and multiplayer models, but you never know.

ultimately though, even if activision payed to play it wouldn't be necessarily better IMO
---
Wants sequels to Timesplitters, Amped 2, Mirrors Edge, Sleeping Dogs, Burnout and Need For Speed Underground.
#5slaveanselmo(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2013 3:49:06 PM
SergioMach5 posted...
I probably would be happier to pay to play monthly the modern warfare multiplayer since MW3 was essentially a watered down map pack for MW2, and would have been happier doing a monthly charge and leave when I want than forking 60 quid out on a half assed game, along with all the maps on one game (imagine CoD4, MW2 and MW3 maps combined)

Treyarch titles though would be iffy for monthly pay since the last 3 games have all had different time periods and multiplayer models, but you never know.

ultimately though, even if activision payed to play it wouldn't be necessarily better IMO


I mean if they charged to play then they would have to keep customers happy and not just push out a turd and label it COD that people have become programmed to buy. They'd have to fix the lag or camera or whatever it is.
---
I'm not changjng this signature until a Harbaugh wins the Super Bowl.
#6ZephyrSSXPosted 2/1/2013 3:50:25 PM
They make billions off this franchise and it probably only costs a quarter of it to make each CoD including marketing.

If they aren't going to fix **** on the income they already have, they aren't going to fix it if they charged people to play. They'd just be ripping off stupid people.
---
jekin dixterd > rotchiten clunk
#7slaveanselmo(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2013 3:53:03 PM
People DO NOT play for the campaign so why not make it something like WOW. Instead of having people playing 6 different games they could do dedi servers and have one immense player base. Or something.


And I could have my HCFFA back.
---
I'm not changjng this signature until a Harbaugh wins the Super Bowl.
#8slaveanselmo(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2013 3:55:07 PM
ZephyrSSX posted...
They make billions off this franchise and it probably only costs a quarter of it to make each CoD including marketing.

If they aren't going to fix **** on the income they already have, they aren't going to fix it if they charged people to play. They'd just be ripping off stupid people.


That's why we are talking in hypotheticals..
---
I'm not changjng this signature until a Harbaugh wins the Super Bowl.
#9bbert901Posted 2/1/2013 3:57:30 PM
No because COD is all about the bottom line, they see the money and their work is done
---
http://i.imgur.com/OFUbs.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Gzd6P.jpg http://oi48.tinypic.com/256xlj4.jpg